JUDGMENT Admit. Notice made returnable forthwith. Waived. Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent of the parties. 2. The two appeals are decided by the Reference Court by two separate Judgments on 29/06/2012. However, the parties in these two appeals are the same. The two lands from the same survey no no.4/6 from the same village i.e. Loliem from Taluka Canacona are acquired for the same project i.e. for approach roads to Galgibag bridge on NH-17 (re-alignment) and the evidence tendered by the parties is the same and therefore, these two appeals are decided by this common judgment. 3. The Government has acquired the land admeasuring 960 square metres from survey no.4/6 by notification under section 4 bearing no.22/143/90-RD dated 31/1/1991 and the SLAO has passed the award dated 4/3/1993 at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.metre and also granted the value of trees. The said case was taken to the Collector/SLAO and the original claimant demanded enhanced rate of the compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.metre and also demanded enhancement in the value of the trees. 4. The Government has acquired the land admeasuring 930 square metres from survey no.4/6 by notification no.22/132/88-RD under section 4 dated 24/11/1988 and the SLAO has passed the award dated 2/12/1991 the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.metre and also granted the value of trees. The said was taken to the Collector/SLAO and the original claimant demanded enhanced rate of the compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.metre and also demanded enhancement in the value of the trees. The claimants i.e. the respondents did not agree with the said amount of the award and approached the Collector/SLAO under the Act and thereafter made reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 ('The Act”, for short). To the District Court. 5. The respondents/State appeared in the reference. The State filed reply. The claimants examined three witnesses in support of their case namely, Dattapratap Laxman Prabhu as AW.1, Mr. Ramchandra Varik, as AW.2 and Vikas Dessai as AW3, an expert The State examined one Officer, Mr. Venencio D'Costa as RW.1 and Mr. A. Venkatesh as RW2 to prove its case. 5. The respondents/State appeared in the reference. The State filed reply. The claimants examined three witnesses in support of their case namely, Dattapratap Laxman Prabhu as AW.1, Mr. Ramchandra Varik, as AW.2 and Vikas Dessai as AW3, an expert The State examined one Officer, Mr. Venencio D'Costa as RW.1 and Mr. A. Venkatesh as RW2 to prove its case. The learned District Judge after considering the evidence of both the parties oral as well as documentary allowed the reference partly by enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs.3/- to Rs.36/- per sq.metre and from Rs.4/- to Rs.40/- and granted other consequential and statutory reliefs. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgments and awards, State has preferred this appeal. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the award passed and the rate fixed by the learned District Judge is exorbitant. She submitted that in fact the District Judge has not relied much on the comparable sale instance which was produced by he original claimants in support of their case. The Learned Addl. Government Advocate has taken me to the relevant paragraphs in the Judgments of the reference Court where the learned District Judge has considered the comparable sale instance. She further submitted that the location of land in the sale instance is not similar to the land acquired for this project. The deduction granted by the reference Court should have been more. The acquired land is bounded on the South by Galgibag river and the land in the sale deed is not bounded by river and therefore the sale deed is not to be considered. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/original claimants opposes the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents both produced and referred a judgment of this Court dated 24/9/1997 pertaining to the land from the same village in the acquisition proceedings i.e. F.A. No.144/1990. Both the counsel argued that in the said appeal, this High Court has fixed the rate in the impugned appeal from the same village as Rs.35/- per sq.metre. The assessment made by the reference court in respect of the evidence especially of the comparable sale instance is to be considered. The learned reference Judge has discussed the evidence of the comparable sale instance from para 21 onwards. It is held that the land in the sale deed and the land acquired are proximate to each other. The assessment made by the reference court in respect of the evidence especially of the comparable sale instance is to be considered. The learned reference Judge has discussed the evidence of the comparable sale instance from para 21 onwards. It is held that the land in the sale deed and the land acquired are proximate to each other. The Judge has considered the distinguishable factors in respect of the land acquired and in the sale instance. The land from the sale deed was a smaller plot, while the land acquired is a bigger one. The sale instance is of June 1987 and the notifications under section 4 for the acquisition of the impugned land are of 24/11/1988 and 31/1/1991. In paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment, the reference Court has also considered the locations of both the lands in the same village in respect of the boundaries of the river/bank and the development expenditure. The marshaling of evidence of the said comparable sale instance is found appropriate. The land in the sale instance was purchased for Rs.90/- per sq.metre and considering the distinguishable factors, the reference Court had deducted the price by 65% and also then added by 10% that sale has taken place one year prior to the notification and three years in the other matter. Thus, the price fixed at Rs.36/- and Rs.40/- per sq.metre is approximate and not exorbitant. Hence, considering this, the order passed by the District Court does not require any interference and it is maintained. 10. The State shall deposit the entire amount as per the award of the reference Court with interest accrued thereon in the reference Court, Margao within four weeks and the original claimants are allowed to withdraw the same.